Single-use versus reusable rhinolaryngoscopes for inpatient otorhinolaryngology consults: Resident and patient experience.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Single-use rhinolaryngoscopes were brought to market in 2019 as an alternative to traditional reusable scopes and have garnered interest across settings given portability and potential cost advantages. While single-use was previously evaluated compared to traditional devices, the overall impact to the consult experience for both users and patients has not been captured. Methods: Eighteen residents performed consults with both single-use and reusable rhinolaryngoscope systems on alternating weeks. A five-question cumulative survey administered across three assessment points over a 12-week period using a five-point rating system to rate favorability. Residents and patients also completed four-point scale surveys following procedure(s) to capture the consult experience. Statistical analyses were performed to measure significance differences between survey responses between the two systems. Results: Single-use rhinolaryngoscopes received higher overall ratings compared with reusables across each metric captured including overall consult time (4.3 vs. 2.2, p < .001), multiscope consults (4.4 vs. 3.1, p < .001), patient communication (4.6 vs. 2.1, p < .001), teaching opportunities (4.6 vs. 2.1, p < .001), and overall ease of use (4.7 vs. 2.6, p < .001). Residents rated single-use higher than reusable after each procedure in terms of ease of use (1.07 vs. 2.68, p < .001) and visual clarity (1.27 vs. 1.89, p = .003), while patients rated single-use higher for understanding of illness (3.9 vs. 3.1, p < .001) and understanding of treatment rationale (3.9 vs. 3.1, p < .001). Conclusion: Resident and patient experience feedback favored single-use rhinolaryngoscopes compared to reusable scope technology across multiple surveyed measurables. Single-use rhinolaryngoscopes provide a viable tool for otorhinolaryngologist and other clinicians to perform rhinolaryngoscopy consults. Level of Evidence 4.